Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Give me a refresher on how the Korean War was "Cowboy Diplomacy".
It was basically our government condemning a form of another government invading a country with very few ties to us. It was trying to play diplomat with force. It's not as black and white as Vietnam or the current Iraq war but look at the historical facts regarding the fear of the Domino Effect and how few ties we had to S. Korea, it was Cowboy Diplomacy
[quote=carterstamp;9442749]President Obama has been criticized by guess who for his handling of the protests in Iran. Pundits are falling all over themselves second-guessing the President’s reaction to the unrest in Iran. Maybe Obama wants to handle the situation intelligently—what a novel idea!!
The recent spate of talking points centering on calling President Obama out on his supposedly wimpy backing of the protesters in Iran are obviously trying to pressure the President to act as recklessly and impulsively as their own albatross-in-chief, George W. Bush. [/quo
one thing about George Bush, he had brass balls
he did not give a crap who liked him, he did what he thought he had to do,
most of which I disagreed with, but Obama on the other hand cries like a girl and I doubt he has balls at all.
A little timeline for you. Please note the influence of the UN.
You either don't know or choose to forget that the US, as one of the victors in WW II, was a guarantor of South Korean independence after the end of the war. The Korean penninsula had been occupied as a colony by Japan for most of the 20th Century with the Soviet Union administering North Korea. The Domino Effect was coined by President Eisenhower in the late 50's and adopted by both Kennedy and Johnson.
President Obama has been criticized by guess who for his handling of the protests in Iran. Pundits are falling all over themselves second-guessing the President’s reaction to the unrest in Iran. Maybe Obama wants to handle the situation intelligently—what a novel idea!!
The recent spate of talking points centering on calling President Obama out on his supposedly wimpy backing of the protesters in Iran are obviously trying to pressure the President to act as recklessly and impulsively as their own albatross-in-chief, George W. Bush. [/quo
one thing about George Bush, he had brass balls
he did not give a crap who liked him, he did what he thought he had to do,
most of which I disagreed with, but Obama on the other hand cries like a girl and I doubt he has balls at all.
Yeah, that manly man G Duuurrrrbbb who got us into Iraq on bad, or "enhanced" intelligence.
It was basically our government condemning a form of another government invading a country with very few ties to us. It was trying to play diplomat with force. It's not as black and white as Vietnam or the current Iraq war but look at the historical facts regarding the fear of the Domino Effect and how few ties we had to S. Korea, it was Cowboy Diplomacy
Yoyu ned to read more on just why truman deciddied to go into Korrea and then look at the result more carefully. I am surp[rised that you didn;t poin to WWI and WWII has other examples of that dream policy you have. The of course;the british empire could bring so mnay other examples.Its funy that trumnan end his oresdiency with so liitle popualr support but form Kennedy n he has been celebrated as one of the top presidencts of the twentth century for his action. kennedy worte a book on such peolle that had the courage to go against public popularity .
If a story has teeth, why can't you guys find a source other than Huffington Post?
Seriously - every time a HP link is posted, you all get slammed for using it as a source. There's a reason for that, you know...
The reason is partisan nonsense from people like yourself, nothing more.
There is no validity in attacks against huffington post - rather it screams "I'm ignorant, yay".
Unless of course, you have examples of huffpo making stuff up.
In which case, please share.
Yeah, that manly man B Clinnnnnton who got us into Iraq on bad, or "enhanced" intelligence.
CLINTON SIGNS IRAQ LIBERATION ACT
October 31, 1998
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
October 31, 1998
Statement by thePpresident
Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of
1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that
the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition
that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality
of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime
in Baghdad now offers.
Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are:
The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a
freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that
of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom
at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable
due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis
deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.
The United States looks forward to a democratically supported
regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the
reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these
objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such
changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.
INC WELCOMES IRAQ LIBERATION ACT
INC Welcomes President Clinton's Signature of the Iraq Liberation Act
London (October 31, 1998)
Following is a statement by Ahmad Chalabi, President of the Executive
Council of the Iraqi National Congress.
Saddam has shown once again that he is irredeemable. His defiance of
the United Nations Security Council and his rejection of all reasonable
attempts to resolve the impasse, which he made, demonstrate that he has
no concern for the well being of the Iraqi people. He puts his power
megalomania above the life and happiness of the Iraqi people.
Saddam is the problem and he cannot be part of any solution in Iraq.
Therefore, President Clinton's action today is the most appropriate
response to Saddam. Let him know that Iraqis will rise up to liberate
themselves from his totalitarian dictatorship and that the US is ready
to help their democratic forces with arms to do so. Only then will the
trail of tragedy in Iraq end. Only then will Iraq be free of weapons of
mass destruction.
Yeah, that manly man G Duuurrrrbbb who got us into Iraq on bad, or "enhanced" intelligence.
how many democrats voted yes on that??
good grief
I am sooooooooooooo sick of hearing this,
so why are we still there if Obama said we would be out, that makes about as much sense as your statement
and why is Obama doing a whole lot of the same things Bush did?
Obama has his head so far up his own butt he can not see daylight
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
